[tialaramex]

In Rust this roadblock is highlighted to Stephan. Aha, we cannot do this. Perhaps Stephan should ask the maintainer of the software they're using for a version which has the properties they desire for threaded use.

In C++ equivalent roadblocks are not sign posted. You may not even realise you're in trouble until some very strange errors begin to happen.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

So for the first paragraph, this seems to be severely problematic for any software where someone you know and trust and who continues to have a good relationship with you is no longer available. How important this is will obviously vary, but predicating some important benefit of the language and saying that this benefit won't cause issues in the future because you can "ask the maintainer" is pretty unrealistic for proprietary software.

For the second paragraph, that depends a great deal on (a) what the mechanism used to "send a (shared, ref-counted reference thing) to another thread actually means and (b) what objects are used to accomplish this. Certainly simply writing the address of a shared_ptr<T> in C++ will work out as you indicate. But that's not the only way to do it. Rust's benefit comes from you being "unable" to do it an unsafe way; C++'s benefit comes from the fact that somebody has probably implemented the safe way in C++ already :)

[tialaramex]

> C++'s benefit comes from the fact that somebody has probably implemented the safe way in C++ already :)

You're an experienced C++ programmer, you already know what the "safe way" will be in C++. "Just don't make any mistakes". There's no possible way to benefit from multi-threading and yet use arbitrary non-thread-safe features magically without problems, the "genius" of C++ is finding a way to blame you for things you can't do anything about.